This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Jose Maciel and Elvis Bonilla, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. Bar 20 Diary LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Feb. 19, 2021 | Result Date: Oct. 13, 2020 | Filing Date: Apr. 30, 2019 |

Case number: 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO Settlement –  $450,000

Judge

Dale A. Drozd

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

David G. Spivak
(The Spivak Law Firm)

Caroline T. Zarneh
(The Spivak Law Firm)


Defendant

S. Brett Sutton
(Sutton Hague Law Corporation PC)

Jared Hague
(Sutton Hague Law Corporation PC)


Facts

Jose Maciel and Elvis Bonilla were the named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Bar 20 Dairy, LLC on behalf of themselves and other employees. The complaint relied on various California consumer laws and Business and Professions Code sections, and also included a Private Attorney General Act component. The parties agreed to settle the claims after plaintiffs' first amended complaint.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant did not provide proper breaks and wages. Defendant failed to provide plaintiffs timely rest breaks, meal periods, or properly calculated minimum and overtime payments. Plaintiffs also did not receive final payment upon termination.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions and instead contended that plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to raise a cognizable claim. Plaintiffs' contentions were also insufficient to support allegations of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Result

The court approved a $450,000 settlement agreement between the parties.


#136040

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390